Very little makes sense in this business about Jack Straw, Muslim women and veils. Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant from Dewsbury, Yorks, was last week suspended for refusing to take her veil off in class - she was allowed to wear it everywhere else at school, but, rightly to my mind, was told by her local education authority that her pupils, who are mostly learning English as a second language, needed to see her mouth when she taught. This seems entirely sensible.
The rest of the whole sorry 'debate' is anything but.

The white, male former foreign secretary said the veil was a “visible statement of separation and of difference”, and that he asks women who visit his surgery to remove it. And nuns? Does he demand to see their hair, too? It’s open season on Islam — Muslims are the new Jews. And the idea that Straw’s divisive statement should not only be tolerated but adopted on all sides, as it has been with a kind of bullying relish, troubles me.

Especially since July 7, it has become acceptable to say the most ignorant, degrading things about Islam. And then we all sit around wondering why young Muslim men appear to be getting angrier and more politicised, or why “westernised” young Muslim women whose mothers go bare-headed are suddenly, defiantly, opting for the full-on niqab-style veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes.

I am particularly irked by ancient old “feminists” wheeling out themselves and their 30-years-out-of-date opinions to reiterate the old chestnut that Islam, by its nature, oppresses women (unlike the Bible, eh,?) and that the veil compounds the blanket oppression.

In their view all Muslim women are crushed because they can’t wear visible lipstick or flash their thongs. Does it occur to these idiots that not necessarily everyone swoons with admiration at the fact that they have won the freedom to dress like 55-year-old slappers?

That perhaps there exist large sections of our democratic society, veiled or otherwise, who have every right to their modesty, just as their detractors have every right to wear push-up bras?

But I’ll get to that in a minute. I should start by saying that my mother was born in Pakistan of a Hindu mother and a Muslim father. She was convent-educated and went on to marry two Catholics (not at the same time). I therefore — unlike some “offended” Wasp commentators — know what I’m talking about, a) because of my endless “aunties”, and b) through spending much of my childhood in India and Pakistan. Given the mish-mash of my ancestry, religious bigotry brings me out in hives. And what we are witnessing is religious bigotry of the most shameful kind. The words used in the context of the veil debate — “strange”, “spooky”, “weird”, “offensive”, “creepy”, “wrong”, “evil-looking”, “sinister” — are not words a civilised society should use about other human beings.

People are made uncomfortable by all sorts of things: I find shaven-headed, tattooed men unpleasant, especially if they’re drunk. I’m not mad keen on hooded gangs of youths at three in the morning. Facial piercings hurt my eyes.

My former husband and I once went to look at a house we were thinking of buying in a Jewish Orthodox bit of London. As it happened we were the only non-Orthodox people on that bit of pavement that morning. I noticed a group of Hassidim were walking around us in a peculiar way. “They’re avoiding our shadows,” the estate agent said, “because we’re unclean.” I didn’t think much of that, either.

But we all need to coexist peaceably. The fact that I find the man in Camden market with bolts through his face, or the Orthodox woman dressed in a drab sack and wearing a bad wig, as “weird” — weirder, actually — than a woman dressed in black with only her eyes showing is neither here nor there.

I don’t expect they think much of me, either. But I would have to be deranged, or consumed with hatred, to attribute random demerits to them on the basis of their physical appearance. A lot of people are made uncomfortable by disability, for instance — but because they live in a civilised society they don’t say it.

Imagine if Straw had said, “There are an awful lot of autistic people in my constituency. I tell them to look me right in the eye, otherwise I can’t help them.” Would there not be an outcry? I’m sorry to equate Islam with disability, but I am doing so because an observant person’s religion is as integral a part of them as their genetic make-up.

Oppressed women are everywhere: there’s probably one living in your street. She may be a Muslim wearing a veil, or a white woman whose husband beats her. She may be covered from head to toe, dressed like a librarian, or fond of micro-skirts. She may be your mother or your sister. She may be you — regardless of how you dress, what you believe or where you come from. And that is the point. Unhappy, abused people come in all colours, shapes and sizes. It is absurd to suddenly, appoint ourselves moral arbiters, and decree, very loudly, that a piece of fabric is an indicator of an unhappy, down-trodden life.

Happy people come in all formats too. The concept of the men hanging out together while the women “work” in the kitchen may seem peculiar to a non-Muslim — though not that peculiar, given that a less formalised version of the same thing happens whenever you have friends round — but I’ve been to many memorable, jolly parties where gangs of Muslim women ate, gossiped and laughed together without seeming overwhelmingly oppressed, or indeed, oppressed at all.

My experience of Muslim life is not that it is the patriarchal nightmare of legend, but that women are powerful, vocal and iron-fisted beneath their velvet gloves. This is a subjective viewpoint: I am not claiming that every Muslim woman in the world is gloriously carefree. They aren’t (who is?), and I am particularly offended by Straw’s comments because the women Straw described are by and large first-generation immigrants — ie, poor working-class women trying to get on with their lives.

I wonder why none of the army of instant experts has pointed out that, by and large, middle and upper middle-class Muslim women do not veil themselves unless they have the misfortune to live in a country that insists on it.

So Straw and his acolytes — the self-appointed sisterhood among them — are picking on the women who are most voiceless and least able to defend themselves. They should be ashamed.

I have Irish ancestry and I never experienced anything like what members of the Muslim community are going through during the 30 years of provo'IRA terrorist operations on the UK mainland, and this was real terror, not false flag, propaganda and spin.

There were, of course the Guildford four and the Birmingham six. These cases were interesting as the people who argued their innocence were branded 'looney toon' conspiracy theorists.Also, having said all the above, there were false flag "IRA terrorist incidents" during the troubles.

Very little makes sense in this business about Jack Straw, Muslim women and veils. Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant from Dewsbury, Yorks, was last week suspended for refusing to take her veil off in class - she was allowed to wear it everywhere else at school, but, rightly to my mind, was told by her local education authority that her pupils, who are mostly learning English as a second language, needed to see her mouth when she taught. This seems entirely sensible.
The rest of the whole sorry 'debate' is anything but.

As a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, I thoroughly agree with India Knight. I have specialised in teaching prounuciation and from this experience know it is essential for my students to see my mouth and for me to see theirs. I have taught many Muslim women, some of whom have worn the hijab and some not. This is entirely their choice and in no way offends me or impedes their learning. I only once had the experience of teaching a woman in the niqab. That would have proved a problem had she been in my class on a regular basis, but this only occurred when I was once looking after a colleagues' class.

There is currently a very worrying orgy of demonising Muslims going on and it is chillingly reminiscent of the demonisation of Jews in the 1930s.

The 911 truth movement needs urgently to deepen its relationship with Muslim Britain and to expose the hypocrisy of this trend.

As a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, I thoroughly agree with India Knight. I have specialised in teaching prounuciation and from this experience know it is essential for my students to see my mouth and for me to see theirs.

"Such stories are rarely as clear-cut as they first appear, which is why politicians are unwise to make incendiary comments on the basis of partial information. For example, Ms Azmi did not refuse to teach children without her veil, as first reported, but only when men were present."

---

She was teaching children, and there is no need to veil from prepubescent children, only from men who are not close relatives.

If the above correction from The Herald is true, then this episode, like so many other recent stories, seems like something that the media has sensationalised, by not giving all, or by misrepresenting, the facts, whether intentionally or not.
________
Honda Cub F history

Last edited by AntiZionistAntiNeocon on Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total

Although there is no doubt whatsoever that the official 9/11 story is a collection of lies, and that the US Govt were at the very least encouraging what happened on that day, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.
In order for the West and its values to survive to 2060 intact (notwithstanding soaring muslim birthrates) it must have control of middle east oil and gas reserves.
However, we can't have a proper debate about the West's next steps without knowing ALL the facts. That is the importance of the 9/11 Truth movement.
The idea that "The 911 truth movement needs urgently to deepen its relationship with Muslim Britain..." is preposterous. Akin to taking a running jump from the frying pan right into the fire.

has to have muslim stories whether real or fabricated or absolutely fake in order to justify the 'war on terror'. Without muslim stories dominating the media the ideological propaganda overdrive for new wars would weaken.

The argument over the hijab is fake and more to do with electioneering by the Labourites to win back votes from the Tories (as they won electorally in England last time round) and it is so fake that not long ago Blairs wife supported a girl in school who wanted to wear a hijab using the european human rights act.

Although there is no doubt whatsoever that the official 9/11 story is a collection of lies, and that the US Govt were at the very least encouraging what happened on that day, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.
In order for the West and its values to survive to 2060 intact (notwithstanding soaring muslim birthrates) it must have control of middle east oil and gas reserves.
However, we can't have a proper debate about the West's next steps without knowing ALL the facts. That is the importance of the 9/11 Truth movement.
The idea that "The 911 truth movement needs urgently to deepen its relationship with Muslim Britain..." is preposterous. Akin to taking a running jump from the frying pan right into the fire.

And what values will western democracy be manifesting if it maintains a policy of constant war against the equally legitamate rights to share the planets resources of the rest of the world for the next 54 years?

(USA: 4% of planetary population, 25% global oil consumption)

Any passing student of ethics will see the only values that could contemplate such a course are symbolised by a bundle of sticks bound around an Axe head_________________Free your Self and Free the World

it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.

In order for the West and its values to survive

Erm...

So are you trying to say it was okay to murder (on 9/11) deceive and lie (about WMD and yellowcake uranium and 45 minute missiles) murder over 600,000 Iraqis , steal oil and industry, and torture innocent children in front of their parents (Abu Ghuraib etc.) in order to preserve "Western Values" ???? Don't you see some sort of contradiction here?

Although there is no doubt whatsoever that the official 9/11 story is a collection of lies, and that the US Govt were at the very least encouraging what happened on that day, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.
In order for the West and its values to survive to 2060 intact (notwithstanding soaring muslim birthrates) it must have control of middle east oil and gas reserves.
However, we can't have a proper debate about the West's next steps without knowing ALL the facts. That is the importance of the 9/11 Truth movement.
The idea that "The 911 truth movement needs urgently to deepen its relationship with Muslim Britain..." is preposterous. Akin to taking a running jump from the frying pan right into the fire.

It's not something that can be satisfactorily 'proved' to a materialist, but a society founded on murder and repression (however 'grand' the goals purport to be) can have no legitimacy.

Human beings the world over do seem to have an innate desire for justice, and the great ideological movements - that is the enduring great religions of the world, rather than the worthless and usually increasingly brutal short-lived political experiments, all reflect this desire.

Despite the demonising claptrap that you might be hearing currently regarding Islam, certain central themes are common to all and are generally regarded as prerequistes for societies to function in a healthy sustainable fashion.
These include:
prohibition on murder,
prohibition of lies,
a duty of care to others particularly the weak, the sick, the old and the young,
and endeavouring not to allow ourselves to become subject to the darker sides of our natures.
There are more, but I'm not particularly religious and those few examples are enough to be going on with.

Many of us (that is the people living on this planet) regard murder of another soul for material gain as the basest and most corrupt crime there is. Whether carried out for direct personal gain or indirectly in the name of your group allegiance makes no difference to the inevitable corrosive effect on the human psyche.

Decadence is not an ideology - it is the cynical lack of one, and destined to implode in the void of its own hopelessness.

it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.

In order for the West and its values to survive

Erm...

So are you trying to say it was okay to murder (on 9/11) deceive and lie (about WMD and yellowcake uranium and 45 minute missiles) murder over 600,000 Iraqis , steal oil and industry, and torture innocent children in front of their parents (Abu Ghuraib etc.) in order to preserve "Western Values" ???? Don't you see some sort of contradiction here?

!?!?!??!!!!!?!?!

Your post really is remarkable for its ignorance.

I am afraid to say that you can't make an omelette without breaking the eggs.

it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the wrong thing to do in the medium term.

In order for the West and its values to survive

Erm...

So are you trying to say it was okay to murder (on 9/11) deceive and lie (about WMD and yellowcake uranium and 45 minute missiles) murder over 600,000 Iraqis , steal oil and industry, and torture innocent children in front of their parents (Abu Ghuraib etc.) in order to preserve "Western Values" ???? Don't you see some sort of contradiction here?

!?!?!??!!!!!?!?!

Your post really is remarkable for its ignorance.

I am afraid to say that you can't make an omelette without breaking the eggs.

Emptiness and soulless trade and commerce for the most part
Immersion in an endless trade of chatter about the facade that's presented
Triggering of the perverse fantasies that evolve from suppression of body consciousness from a very young age
The other cultures do it too_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

With that i have just realised why religion is now viewed as obsolete, TV is the new religion, which keeps the masses transfixed while the Bandits Rape the Planet!_________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Emptiness and soulless trade and commerce for the most part
Immersion in an endless trade of chatter about the facade that's presented
Triggering of the perverse fantasies that evolve from suppression of body consciousness from a very young age
The other cultures do it too

suffice it to say that the 'western values' the uk should re-adopt would be drawn from a time before the first world war, based on christianity, include an aristocracy (or a feudal system) and would be very definitely monocultural. in creating this we would have to accept a one-off payment to get rid of those that don't belong here and massive investment to re-educate those left who were failed by successive socialist governments since 1945.
i suspect i know very well indeed why you 'have always wondered' what they are. in the above scenario you wouldn't need to wonder any more.

suffice it to say that the 'western values' the uk should re-adopt would be drawn from a time before the first world war, based on christianity, include an aristocracy (or a feudal system) and would be very definitely monocultural. in creating this we would have to accept a one-off payment to get rid of those that don't belong here and massive investment to re-educate those left who were failed by successive socialist governments since 1945.
i suspect i know very well indeed why you 'have always wondered' what they are. in the above scenario you wouldn't need to wonder any more.

No thanks - the past has somewhere between nothing and very little to offer us towards dealing with the challenges of the future, and wishing (or even enforcing) so won't make it so.
Unless you're beeing incredibly ironic, in which case - haha.

Emptiness and soulless trade and commerce for the most part
Immersion in an endless trade of chatter about the facade that's presented
Triggering of the perverse fantasies that evolve from suppression of body consciousness from a very young age
The other cultures do it too

suffice it to say that the 'western values' the uk should re-adopt would be drawn from a time before the first world war, based on christianity, include an aristocracy (or a feudal system) and would be very definitely monocultural. in creating this we would have to accept a one-off payment to get rid of those that don't belong here and massive investment to re-educate those left who were failed by successive socialist governments since 1945.
i suspect i know very well indeed why you 'have always wondered' what they are. in the above scenario you wouldn't need to wonder any more.

No we would not need to wonder any more, as the masses at that time were largely uneducated slaves to their masters.It seems Lord parkestony would wish that time again,and indeed it would seem by draconian measures by the "government" of the people,we are of course on that path again.

Nigel Farage was on the BBC this morning (the Politics show?) saying just that TG.The opposition was the "media shows muslim personality" Saira Khan, who unsurprisingly wore a headscarf for the occasion:lol:_________________The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"

Depends what their definition of terror is. Rather I see it as the post-Cold War term for anything that is opposed to the idealogy(whether consciously or not) of the PNAC(Project for the New American Century) and the elites. I never trust stats like these even if it has a source...there's always hidden factors in stats and it's manipulative.

Regarding Muslims being the new Jews...well I wonder where that hatred has originated from! A certain Italian state with an almighty bank, a supposed religious doctrine and a power agenda unrivalled in the world as we know it. But I guess it's easier to call them the NWO as it's not framing those who are up to their necks in it._________________"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917

(Reuters) - Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in Britain, the Conservative Party's chairwoman will say on Thursday.

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the Pakistan-born minister without portfolio, will say in a speech at the University of Leicester that dividing Muslims into "moderate" and "extremist" fuels intolerance, according to prepared remarks published in the Daily Telegraph.

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim,'" the first Muslim woman in a British cabinet will say.

"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.

"And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman's either oppressed or is making a political statement.'"

There are 2.9 million Muslims in Britain, almost 5 percent of the population, according to an estimate last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Britain has regularly been a focus of Islamist militant plots. In the worst attack in the country, suicide bombers killed 52 people on the London transport network in July 2005.

"Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law," Warsi was due to say.

"They also should face social rejection and alienation across society and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims."

Warsi's comments follow those made by Prime Minister David Cameron in his New Year message when he said Britain still faced a serious threat from international terrorism.

"We must ask ourselves as a country how we are allowing the radicalisation and poisoning of the minds of some young British Muslims who then contemplate and sometimes carry out acts of sickening barbarity," Cameron said.

Tree Spiking by Earth Liberation Front classed as terrorism. no deaths- no injuries
What t.f.does US military bombing of Baghdad therefore constitute. The propagandists have done a wonderful job in blinding the western masses into thinking dropping bombs on a city does not cause terror. Writing Alqaeda on a shell casing doesnt guarantee thats who it will kill or maim._________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum